Moving the goalpost I see. From "No courts have ruled that way" I found that the 7th circuit did in fact rule that way, and they based it on a Supreme Court Ruling as well(that would be the second quote). So I said that courts recognize that Atheism is a religion. The courts agree.

My viewpoint is that the government should not favor one religion over another religion. I, like the courts, have a broad construction of what a religion is. This after all being a legal argument.

You think that theistic religions should be disadvantaged, and that Atheism and Secular Humanism should be advantaged in government, to protect that separation of church and state, changing their definition to suit your argument. Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't protects against all kinds of offense. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation. And that is what the nexus of this Indiana law is about. So no bullshit about that ending action at the cash register. That's false.

I'm done with this goal post moving and your rhetoric. If you want to come back with some logic and facts have at it, but quit calling me a liar when you don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.

IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion.
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.



So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours. Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?

But I will contend the state is become atheistic. So the state is acting on behalf of atheists constantly and it is disadvantaging all other religions.
This is because while courts do in fact acknowledge that Atheism is a religion, they are applying a Separation of Church and State doctrine to prevent any religion or mention of God from the state.
And no God is Atheism.
Thus my problem with the courts ruling based on a nonexistent separation of church and state in the constitution rather than the clear freedom of religious express and prohibition of the establishment of a state religion(which the courts have established defacto instead of dejure, re atheism.)

Since you haven't actually read the first amendment to the constitution, let me break it down for you:

.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So there is "freedom of speech" right in the Amendment. Right next to the prohibition on congress to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Which is right next to the prohibition of Congress to create a Federal Government's officially established religion(i.e. a state religion). No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion. In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.

As for things grownups understand; they understand the difference between violence which is not protected and being an asshole, which is protected by the aforementioned freedom of speech. So your law preventing someone from being an asshole to people they don't like is oppressing not only their religious rights but their speech rights as well. Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.

Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.

Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.

Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.

I wish there were a rant+1 mod for this.

They will constantly be replaceing because of the number of packs in a large system and the fact the packs are on the downside of their cycle life, and thus why they were removed from cars. NiFe doesn't really have a cycle life like LiOn does. These will be cycling daily for night discharge; this will be an issue. Why not install a low maintenance system to start with rather than be replacing battery packs constantly, or at least several times, throughout the 30 year( 10,000cycle) life of the system?

They're going to be constantly replacing LiOn packs on any appreciable sized system. Why not go with a NiFe battery system that will last for fifty years? The price won't be much different, especially over the life of the system, or is the system life that short? Its not like you need to keep weight and size down in a building. Also who wants the fire risk that LiOn's pose in their business or home?

I've been intrigued by the Spark EV since it hit Car and Drivers list of best cars under $30k, but It seems only available in very select markets. How can I get one in the southeast US?

The reason it changes is with the sequential system the MPG when running gasoline was very disappointing with the engines that would allow full electric power. Going to the parallel allowed for better fuel economy when in that mode, and note people still complained about that economy.

I like the way the volt fixes range anxiety by allowing serial hybrid/generation. That makes it the only electric vehicle for sale that can easily be taken on long travel. I wonder if some people don't get into one because the electric only range is a bit longer than their commute. So the question is: Could GM have an option for the volt to add battery storage in the trunk to boost electric range? Then the owner could remove it for long trips but it would boost the range for normal commute and driving. You could possibly get the same range as a Tesla like this, but the advantage is that when traveling you could remove it and use the trunk space for suitcases and rely on the gas engine for the travel, whereas the Tesla would have to add a motor and generator to get similar travel performance, and that would limit its space/weight.